What do you think?
Rate this book
Against All Gods: Six Polemics on Religion and an Essay on Kindness
Do religions have an inherent right to be respected? Is atheism itself a form of religion, and can there be such a thing as a 'fundamentalist atheist'? Are we witnessing a global revival in religious zeal, or do the signs point instead to religion's ultimate decline?
In a series of bold, unsparing polemics, A.C. Grayling tackles these questions head on, exposing the dangerous unreason he sees at the heart of religious faith and highlighting the urgent need we have to reject it in all its forms, without compromise. In its place he argues for a set of values based on reason, reflection and sympathy, taking his cue from the great ethical tradition of western philosophy.
In a series of bold, unsparing polemics, A.C. Grayling tackles these questions head on, exposing the dangerous unreason he sees at the heart of religious faith and highlighting the urgent need we have to reject it in all its forms, without compromise. In its place he argues for a set of values based on reason, reflection and sympathy, taking his cue from the great ethical tradition of western philosophy.
64 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 2007
5 people are currently reading
677 people want to read
About the author
A.C. Grayling
95 books667 followersAnthony Clifford "A. C." Grayling is a British philosopher. In 2011 he founded and became the first Master of New College of the Humanities, an independent undergraduate college in London. Until June 2011, he was Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London, where he taught from 1991. He is also a supernumerary fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford.
He is a director and contributor at Prospect Magazine, as well as a Vice President of the British Humanist Association. His main academic interests lie in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic. He has described himself as "a man of the left" and is associated in Britain with the new atheism movement, and is sometimes described as the 'Fifth Horseman of New Atheism'. He appears in the British media discussing philosophy.
He is a director and contributor at Prospect Magazine, as well as a Vice President of the British Humanist Association. His main academic interests lie in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic. He has described himself as "a man of the left" and is associated in Britain with the new atheism movement, and is sometimes described as the 'Fifth Horseman of New Atheism'. He appears in the British media discussing philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
November 13, 2007
This book is filled with so many sweeping generalizations, it's hard to know where to begin attacking it. Grayling claims to be arguing against religion , but he is effectively arguing only against Islam and Christianity, and actually, only against the most extreme believers/proselytizers. He consistently alludes to violence done in the name of religion (crusades, suicide bombers), conveniently ignoring the non-violent tenets of, say, Buddhism. He refers to things such as "the predictable response of religious believers" -- hmmnnn...he can predict the response of several billion people of a dozen different religions?
Perhaps his most idiotic gripe: "the public advertisement of their faith membership. When people enter the public domain wearing or sporting immediately obvious visual statements of their religious affiliation, one at least of their reasons for doing so is to be accorded the overriding identity of a votary of that religion, with the associated implied demand that they are therefore to be given some special treatment including respect...But why should they be given automatic respect for that reason?" Let's ignore the fact that his belief in free speech should logically extend to, well, free fashion. The purpose of the nun's habit or the monk's robe is to eliminate fashion-choices from the daily routine. All the nuns and all the monks wear the same thing, every day: does Grayling want them to dress differently to go about the streets?
Grayling endlessly muddles the idea of religious organizations requesting state funding (the pernicious faith-based schools in England), with people of faith asking for respect. What human doesn't want respect? Whether for his/her faith, values, culture, or intellect. To argue a secular state is one thing, to argue against monks wearing robes is silly.
Grayling, in arguing against religion, says: "No wars have been fought over theories in botany or meteorology; most wars and conflicts the world's history owe themselves directly or indirectly to religion." Noticeably absent from this claim are the words race, territory, ethnicity and resources. Grayling does not note that the current genocide in Darfur, in which a couple hundred thousand people are being slaughtered, is an intra-Muslim conflict. Blaming religion for most human violence is missing the point, dangerously. Was the US invasion of Iraq about Christianity? Or even Democracy? Does Grayling not see the role of oil in that conflict? And the greed of the military-industrial complex? Does Grayling think we should waste our time worrying about nuns in habits, and ignore the need for alternative fuels and the danger of beasts like Halliburton?
Since Grayling claims to value science so very much, it's unfortunate he missed the work of E.O. Wilson, who spent decades studying insect societies. Not only did Wilson discover that ants wage war, he actually found that animals are more violent than humans: "The data from long-term behavioral studies of groups such as lions, hyena's and chimpanzees show that the per capita murder-rate in animal-societies that do engage in murderous aggression is much higher than in human beings...even if you throw in the rate of mortality due to direct aggression during war in the modern area. Even there, in a few episodes during this century where we saw the highest mortality in modern history, the percentage of people killed out of the entire population of Europe was still relatively small. As horrendous as it was, a couple of tens of millions, it was still only a small percentage. Whereas a larger percentage of an entire clan of aggressive social animals sometimes is killed. And when you go down to ants, they are genuinely the most warlike of the animals, and the mortality-rates there of individuals and colonies can be truly staggering."
These creatures kill over territory and resources, not their gods.
Perhaps his most idiotic gripe: "the public advertisement of their faith membership. When people enter the public domain wearing or sporting immediately obvious visual statements of their religious affiliation, one at least of their reasons for doing so is to be accorded the overriding identity of a votary of that religion, with the associated implied demand that they are therefore to be given some special treatment including respect...But why should they be given automatic respect for that reason?" Let's ignore the fact that his belief in free speech should logically extend to, well, free fashion. The purpose of the nun's habit or the monk's robe is to eliminate fashion-choices from the daily routine. All the nuns and all the monks wear the same thing, every day: does Grayling want them to dress differently to go about the streets?
Grayling endlessly muddles the idea of religious organizations requesting state funding (the pernicious faith-based schools in England), with people of faith asking for respect. What human doesn't want respect? Whether for his/her faith, values, culture, or intellect. To argue a secular state is one thing, to argue against monks wearing robes is silly.
Grayling, in arguing against religion, says: "No wars have been fought over theories in botany or meteorology; most wars and conflicts the world's history owe themselves directly or indirectly to religion." Noticeably absent from this claim are the words race, territory, ethnicity and resources. Grayling does not note that the current genocide in Darfur, in which a couple hundred thousand people are being slaughtered, is an intra-Muslim conflict. Blaming religion for most human violence is missing the point, dangerously. Was the US invasion of Iraq about Christianity? Or even Democracy? Does Grayling not see the role of oil in that conflict? And the greed of the military-industrial complex? Does Grayling think we should waste our time worrying about nuns in habits, and ignore the need for alternative fuels and the danger of beasts like Halliburton?
Since Grayling claims to value science so very much, it's unfortunate he missed the work of E.O. Wilson, who spent decades studying insect societies. Not only did Wilson discover that ants wage war, he actually found that animals are more violent than humans: "The data from long-term behavioral studies of groups such as lions, hyena's and chimpanzees show that the per capita murder-rate in animal-societies that do engage in murderous aggression is much higher than in human beings...even if you throw in the rate of mortality due to direct aggression during war in the modern area. Even there, in a few episodes during this century where we saw the highest mortality in modern history, the percentage of people killed out of the entire population of Europe was still relatively small. As horrendous as it was, a couple of tens of millions, it was still only a small percentage. Whereas a larger percentage of an entire clan of aggressive social animals sometimes is killed. And when you go down to ants, they are genuinely the most warlike of the animals, and the mortality-rates there of individuals and colonies can be truly staggering."
These creatures kill over territory and resources, not their gods.
July 20, 2019
Clear, precise, and to the point. Grayling applies Ockham's razor to the 'arguments' regarding religion, and delivers a concise, easy to read and understand, series of arguments unencumbered by side-issues — and all in just 64 pages total! Highly recommended.
We really must not be afraid to proceed along the path indicated by Grayling in these essays. We have nothing to lose except the chains religion has tied us up with.
We really must not be afraid to proceed along the path indicated by Grayling in these essays. We have nothing to lose except the chains religion has tied us up with.
February 10, 2017
Just dedicating this review to Lynn and Plch who vowed to read the Book that inspired it...it is a bit expensive perhaps? but Amazon might have a cheapie. To Katarzyna who vowed to RE-read it...you really should Kat, it is well worth it. To Cecily and Wendy whom I just noticed are on line at the moment. To K.D. Absolutely who is a Catholic and needs a bit of Real Philosophy. To Lilo who loves to think. And to ALL of YOU ...who LOVE to...... R E A D !!!!!
This appears to be the briefest polemic against religion to have been published so far and that makes it one of the best.
Grayling does not bother discussing the absurd intricacies of theologies whose proponents, the theologians, are called by Grayling:"those master-wrigglers when skewered by logic". Their houses are built on sand, so once one disposes of the sand there is no need to enter or consider the illogic of the theo-logics, because their arguments, theories, proposals are really so much hot air.
Science uses facts to create theories. Anyone , anywhere in the world can test these theories, repeat experiments and publish their findings. A religion however is founded on a private revelation given to one person that must be taken on trust by those who wish to believe it. Believers will eventually speak of their strong 'feeling" that their belief is true. They 'know', not because there is evidence, but because it 'feels' right, makes them 'feel' good, that it 'must' be true. All the wishing and knowing and feeling and musting in the world never makes anything true.It is what is known as 'wishful thinking'.
"Feeling" something is true holds absolutely no validity for a scientist. A scientist who doubts can replicate the experiment or consider the evidence, advance counter-arguments which must be considered by the Scientific Community and show how they fit into the theory. Go and read reviews of "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn for far better descriptions of this process than I can give you here.
Believers are always doing what faith says they shouldn't be doing - looking for signs!!!
Thus we have the too often recurring situations of Mary's face appearing on someone's piece of toast, on a billboard advertising pasta, on a stained wooden pole of a fence by the beach, of crying statues, stains in the wall of a church. The human mind is boundlessly and ridiculously inventive in its insatiable and desperate search for signs to bolster up its faith. Scientists are constantly finding amazing verifications of their Theory of Evolution for instance , but these are so solidly grounded in facts that are open to all to see, so permanent, so much an integral feature of the world's reality, that only fools would ignore them. Faith has nothing to match such proofs. It has No proofs.
Grayling also correctly defines the terms 'atheist', 'secularist' and 'humanist',
since their meanings have long been distorted by religious apologists
so that their enemies could be...burnt alive at the stake for instance.
(Ever heard of a scientist doing THAT to a believer as part of his/her job??
Nah!!!
Too bloody busy doing those experiments!!!)
This appears to be the briefest polemic against religion to have been published so far and that makes it one of the best.
Grayling does not bother discussing the absurd intricacies of theologies whose proponents, the theologians, are called by Grayling:"those master-wrigglers when skewered by logic". Their houses are built on sand, so once one disposes of the sand there is no need to enter or consider the illogic of the theo-logics, because their arguments, theories, proposals are really so much hot air.
Science uses facts to create theories. Anyone , anywhere in the world can test these theories, repeat experiments and publish their findings. A religion however is founded on a private revelation given to one person that must be taken on trust by those who wish to believe it. Believers will eventually speak of their strong 'feeling" that their belief is true. They 'know', not because there is evidence, but because it 'feels' right, makes them 'feel' good, that it 'must' be true. All the wishing and knowing and feeling and musting in the world never makes anything true.It is what is known as 'wishful thinking'.
"Feeling" something is true holds absolutely no validity for a scientist. A scientist who doubts can replicate the experiment or consider the evidence, advance counter-arguments which must be considered by the Scientific Community and show how they fit into the theory. Go and read reviews of "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn for far better descriptions of this process than I can give you here.
Believers are always doing what faith says they shouldn't be doing - looking for signs!!!
Thus we have the too often recurring situations of Mary's face appearing on someone's piece of toast, on a billboard advertising pasta, on a stained wooden pole of a fence by the beach, of crying statues, stains in the wall of a church. The human mind is boundlessly and ridiculously inventive in its insatiable and desperate search for signs to bolster up its faith. Scientists are constantly finding amazing verifications of their Theory of Evolution for instance , but these are so solidly grounded in facts that are open to all to see, so permanent, so much an integral feature of the world's reality, that only fools would ignore them. Faith has nothing to match such proofs. It has No proofs.
Grayling also correctly defines the terms 'atheist', 'secularist' and 'humanist',
since their meanings have long been distorted by religious apologists
so that their enemies could be...burnt alive at the stake for instance.
(Ever heard of a scientist doing THAT to a believer as part of his/her job??
Nah!!!
Too bloody busy doing those experiments!!!)
February 8, 2012
This was a terrific little collection. I confess I have a soft spot for AC Grayling, not a little bit because he tickled Shannon's feet and made her giggle. But I really enjoy his writing and what he has to say, and I respect him tremendously for his academic work.
This was not his typical gentler* tone because these were short essays and he was trying to make a point quickly, which he admits. But they were very readable and made excellent points (what else would I expect?).
I highly recommend this collection to anyone wanting an introduction to Grayling's work, with the caveat that it is a bit more strongly worded than his usual style.
*Grayling has a remarkable ability to be soft spoken and gentle while utterly eviscerating irrational beliefs. It's pretty much the awesomest thing ever.
This was not his typical gentler* tone because these were short essays and he was trying to make a point quickly, which he admits. But they were very readable and made excellent points (what else would I expect?).
I highly recommend this collection to anyone wanting an introduction to Grayling's work, with the caveat that it is a bit more strongly worded than his usual style.
*Grayling has a remarkable ability to be soft spoken and gentle while utterly eviscerating irrational beliefs. It's pretty much the awesomest thing ever.
April 27, 2019
This is a book that I would recommend to any person interested in atheism. I wish I read it earlier. The way it's written (six essays) makes it easier for the beginner to understand. A.C. Grayling surprised me with his concise words.
October 24, 2010
An understated little book that nevertheless contains all of the fundamental arguments against the existence of an all-powerful creator.
April 28, 2009
'Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.' --Thomas Jefferson
The current atheist vs. believer debate is marked by dogmatic pronouncements from both sides. That this is true of the justifications put forth by the faithful is obvious and expected, but the proselytizing of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al. on behalf of atheism is characterized more by statements of ideology than by an appeal to reason. A. C. Grayling writes, "Even some on my own side of the argument here make the mistake of thinking that the dispute about supernaturalistic beliefs is whether they are true or false. Epistemology teaches us that the key point is about rationality." I hate dogma in any and all its forms. This slim volume reflects my views more precisely than the more vociferous advocates of non-belief.
Grayling eschews the term 'atheist'. He writes, "As it happens, no atheist should call himself or herself one. The term already sells a pass to theists, because it invites debate on their ground." I have long been uncomfortable calling myself an atheist for exactly that reason. Grayling opts for the epithet 'naturalist', "denoting one who takes it that the universe is a natural realm, governed by nature's laws." I prefer 'rationalist', one who forms opinions based on reason and knowledge rather than religious impulse or emotional response.
Grayling argues for a 'humanist' alternative, "premised on humanity's best efforts to understand its own nature and circumstances." He contends that human beings should be respected for their humanity, never for their ideology. Grayling also argues that in the end a rational world view will prevail. Given the current state of affairs and from an American perspective this may seem unlikely. Well maybe, if we could just stop shouting at (and killing) each other.
The current atheist vs. believer debate is marked by dogmatic pronouncements from both sides. That this is true of the justifications put forth by the faithful is obvious and expected, but the proselytizing of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al. on behalf of atheism is characterized more by statements of ideology than by an appeal to reason. A. C. Grayling writes, "Even some on my own side of the argument here make the mistake of thinking that the dispute about supernaturalistic beliefs is whether they are true or false. Epistemology teaches us that the key point is about rationality." I hate dogma in any and all its forms. This slim volume reflects my views more precisely than the more vociferous advocates of non-belief.
Grayling eschews the term 'atheist'. He writes, "As it happens, no atheist should call himself or herself one. The term already sells a pass to theists, because it invites debate on their ground." I have long been uncomfortable calling myself an atheist for exactly that reason. Grayling opts for the epithet 'naturalist', "denoting one who takes it that the universe is a natural realm, governed by nature's laws." I prefer 'rationalist', one who forms opinions based on reason and knowledge rather than religious impulse or emotional response.
Grayling argues for a 'humanist' alternative, "premised on humanity's best efforts to understand its own nature and circumstances." He contends that human beings should be respected for their humanity, never for their ideology. Grayling also argues that in the end a rational world view will prevail. Given the current state of affairs and from an American perspective this may seem unlikely. Well maybe, if we could just stop shouting at (and killing) each other.
December 18, 2014
Interessante.
Più un pamphlet che un saggio articolato.
Più un pamphlet che un saggio articolato.
June 20, 2023
Pleasantly good at delivering concise arguments to contemporary attacks and intentional obfuscations against atheism and secularism by religious apologists and conservatives. I think I can learn from him how not to be easily moved by sophistry and deceit and how to respond effectively.
Sadly I found myself in some political paragraphs where he repeats some atheist tropes and historical myths and political simplifications that the serves the reactionary camp -even if that is not his intention- and shows how weak his political understanding is as expected from a liberal.
Finally he did a great finish with a defense of an easy to understand humanism not with a program but more like an ideal for personal and social conduct and I will not blame him for that as I can appreaciate that too. I'm leaving with a quote from the ending of the book.
"In the past humanity was eager to clutch at legends, superstitions and leaps of credulity, to attain quick and simple closure on all that they did not know or understand, to make it seem to themselves that they did know and understand. Humanism recognises this historical fact about the old myths, and sympathises with the needs that drive people in that direction. It points out to such that what feeds their hearts and minds – love, beauty, music, sunshine on the sea, the sound of rain on leaves, the company of friends, the satisfaction that comes from successful effort – is more than the imaginary can ever give them, and that they should learn to re-describe these things – the real things of this world – as what gives life the poetry of its significance.
For that is what humanism is: it is, to repeat and insist, about the value of things human. Its desire to learn from the past, its exhortation to courage in the present, and its espousal of hope for the future, are about real things, real people, real human need and possibility, and the fate of the fragile world we share. It is about human life; it requires no belief in an afterlife. It is about this world; it requires no belief in another world. It requires no commands from divinities, no promises of reward or threats of punishment, no myths and rituals, either to make sense of things or to serve as a prompt to the ethical life. It requires only open eyes, sympathy and the kindness it prompts, and reason."
Sadly I found myself in some political paragraphs where he repeats some atheist tropes and historical myths and political simplifications that the serves the reactionary camp -even if that is not his intention- and shows how weak his political understanding is as expected from a liberal.
Finally he did a great finish with a defense of an easy to understand humanism not with a program but more like an ideal for personal and social conduct and I will not blame him for that as I can appreaciate that too. I'm leaving with a quote from the ending of the book.
"In the past humanity was eager to clutch at legends, superstitions and leaps of credulity, to attain quick and simple closure on all that they did not know or understand, to make it seem to themselves that they did know and understand. Humanism recognises this historical fact about the old myths, and sympathises with the needs that drive people in that direction. It points out to such that what feeds their hearts and minds – love, beauty, music, sunshine on the sea, the sound of rain on leaves, the company of friends, the satisfaction that comes from successful effort – is more than the imaginary can ever give them, and that they should learn to re-describe these things – the real things of this world – as what gives life the poetry of its significance.
For that is what humanism is: it is, to repeat and insist, about the value of things human. Its desire to learn from the past, its exhortation to courage in the present, and its espousal of hope for the future, are about real things, real people, real human need and possibility, and the fate of the fragile world we share. It is about human life; it requires no belief in an afterlife. It is about this world; it requires no belief in another world. It requires no commands from divinities, no promises of reward or threats of punishment, no myths and rituals, either to make sense of things or to serve as a prompt to the ethical life. It requires only open eyes, sympathy and the kindness it prompts, and reason."
June 28, 2014
Excellent book. On occasion Grayling makes arguments upon the basis of broad streaks, and inappropriate extrapolation (despite his disclaimer at the beginning that expounding all logical links within the essays would be difficult, and unlikely). Nonetheless, the book is excellent!
The final quote just hit me hard:
"And this is for the sake of this life, in this world, where we suffer and find joy, where we can help one another, and where we need one another’s help: the help of the living human hand and heart."
The final quote just hit me hard:
"And this is for the sake of this life, in this world, where we suffer and find joy, where we can help one another, and where we need one another’s help: the help of the living human hand and heart."
April 5, 2013
A small collection of short, polemical essays on various topics related to the intersection of religion, atheism, and the rise (and fall?) of secularism. Grayling says nothing new, but says it well, and concisely. Believers will be annoyed, and nonbelievers will have heard it before, but it's a message that deserves repetition.
May 26, 2009
Very concise, basic guide intended to 'piss on the theists parade' by relating all religious dogma and belief in realist, rational terms.
Grayling does not disappoint.
Grayling does not disappoint.
November 25, 2012
A brief but powerful group of essays.
January 16, 2015
Brilliant. Grayling at his concise best.
November 8, 2019
Short essays questioning the need and/or purpose of organized religions. I agreed with a lot of it.
December 16, 2024
full of oversimplifications and all-too-convenient examples, ignorant of atheistic/pantheistic/philosophically thorough (e.g. many Asian) religions, while arrogantly claiming to cover “all religions” —
yet entertaining and making some valid points.
“
Would we tolerate the government telling us comforting lies about, say, an accident at a nuclear plant, or a spillage of deadly viruses from a laboratory? No? Then comforting lies have their limits. More importantly, is truth less important than comfort, even for the lonely and afraid?
Are there not truthful ways to comfort them from the resources of human compassion? There certainly are.
Christians among other things mean by fundamentalist atheists' those who would deny people the comforts of faith (the old and lonely especially) and the companionship of a benign invisible protector in the dark night of the soul - and who (allegedly) fail to see the staggering beauty in art prompted by the inspirations of belief. Yet in its concessive, modest, palliative modern form Christianity is a recent and highly modified version of what, for most of its history, has been an often violent and always oppressive ideology - think Crusades, torture, burnings at the stake, the enslavement of women to constantly repeated childbirth and undivorceable husbands, the warping of human sexuality, the use of fear (of hell's torments) as an instrument of control, and the horrific results of its calumny against Judaism. Nowadays, by contrast, Christianity specialises in soft-focus mood-music; its threats of hell, its demand for poverty and chastity, its doctrine that only the few will be saved and the many damned, have been shed, replaced by strummed guitars and saccharine smiles. It has reinvented itself so often, and with such breath-taking hypocrisy, in the interests of retaining its hold on the gullible, that a medieval monk who woke today, like Woody Allen's Sleeper, would not be able to recognise the faith that bears the same name as his own.
[…]
The Church of England officially abolished Hell by an Act of Synod in the 1920s, and St Paul's strictures on the place of women in church (which was that they are to sit at the back in silence, with heads covered) are so far ignored that there are now women vicars, and there will soon be women bishops.
By the same token, therefore, people with theistic beliefs should be called supernaturalists, and it can be left to them to attempt to refute the findings of physics, chemistry and the biological sciences in an effort to justify their alternative claim that the universe was created, and is run, by supernatural beings. Supernaturalists are fond of claiming that some irreligious people turn to prayer when in mortal danger, but naturalists can reply that supernaturalists typically repose great faith in science when they find themselves in (say) a hospital or an aeroplane - and with far greater frequency. But of course, as votaries of the view that everything is consistent with their beliefs - even apparent refutations of them - supernaturalists can claim that science itself is a gift of god, and thus justify doing so. But they should then remember Popper: 'a theory that explains everything explains nothing.’
As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, since Christians and Muslims do not believe in Thor and Wotan, or Zeus and Ares and Hermes, or Siva and Vishnu, or the Japanese Emperor, and so endlessly on, they too are 'atheists' about almost all the gods ever imagined.
ask a Christian why the ancient story of a deity impregnating a mortal woman who then gives birth to a heroic figure whose deeds earn him a place in heaven, is false as applied to Zeus and his many paramours (the mothers of such as Hercules, the Heavenly Twins, etc.), but true as applied to God, Mary and Jesus. Indeed ask him what is the significance of the fact that this tale is older even than Greek mythology, and commonplace in Middle Eastern mythologies generally. Why are they myths, whereas what is related in the New Testament (a set of texts carefully chosen from a larger number of competing versions some centuries after the events they allege) is not? Do not expect a rational reply; an appeal to faith will be enough, because with faith anything goes.
yet entertaining and making some valid points.
“
Would we tolerate the government telling us comforting lies about, say, an accident at a nuclear plant, or a spillage of deadly viruses from a laboratory? No? Then comforting lies have their limits. More importantly, is truth less important than comfort, even for the lonely and afraid?
Are there not truthful ways to comfort them from the resources of human compassion? There certainly are.
Christians among other things mean by fundamentalist atheists' those who would deny people the comforts of faith (the old and lonely especially) and the companionship of a benign invisible protector in the dark night of the soul - and who (allegedly) fail to see the staggering beauty in art prompted by the inspirations of belief. Yet in its concessive, modest, palliative modern form Christianity is a recent and highly modified version of what, for most of its history, has been an often violent and always oppressive ideology - think Crusades, torture, burnings at the stake, the enslavement of women to constantly repeated childbirth and undivorceable husbands, the warping of human sexuality, the use of fear (of hell's torments) as an instrument of control, and the horrific results of its calumny against Judaism. Nowadays, by contrast, Christianity specialises in soft-focus mood-music; its threats of hell, its demand for poverty and chastity, its doctrine that only the few will be saved and the many damned, have been shed, replaced by strummed guitars and saccharine smiles. It has reinvented itself so often, and with such breath-taking hypocrisy, in the interests of retaining its hold on the gullible, that a medieval monk who woke today, like Woody Allen's Sleeper, would not be able to recognise the faith that bears the same name as his own.
[…]
The Church of England officially abolished Hell by an Act of Synod in the 1920s, and St Paul's strictures on the place of women in church (which was that they are to sit at the back in silence, with heads covered) are so far ignored that there are now women vicars, and there will soon be women bishops.
By the same token, therefore, people with theistic beliefs should be called supernaturalists, and it can be left to them to attempt to refute the findings of physics, chemistry and the biological sciences in an effort to justify their alternative claim that the universe was created, and is run, by supernatural beings. Supernaturalists are fond of claiming that some irreligious people turn to prayer when in mortal danger, but naturalists can reply that supernaturalists typically repose great faith in science when they find themselves in (say) a hospital or an aeroplane - and with far greater frequency. But of course, as votaries of the view that everything is consistent with their beliefs - even apparent refutations of them - supernaturalists can claim that science itself is a gift of god, and thus justify doing so. But they should then remember Popper: 'a theory that explains everything explains nothing.’
As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, since Christians and Muslims do not believe in Thor and Wotan, or Zeus and Ares and Hermes, or Siva and Vishnu, or the Japanese Emperor, and so endlessly on, they too are 'atheists' about almost all the gods ever imagined.
ask a Christian why the ancient story of a deity impregnating a mortal woman who then gives birth to a heroic figure whose deeds earn him a place in heaven, is false as applied to Zeus and his many paramours (the mothers of such as Hercules, the Heavenly Twins, etc.), but true as applied to God, Mary and Jesus. Indeed ask him what is the significance of the fact that this tale is older even than Greek mythology, and commonplace in Middle Eastern mythologies generally. Why are they myths, whereas what is related in the New Testament (a set of texts carefully chosen from a larger number of competing versions some centuries after the events they allege) is not? Do not expect a rational reply; an appeal to faith will be enough, because with faith anything goes.
December 3, 2017
This compact book of six essays addresses the same issues as “The God Argument” but he looks at the issue from a few new angles. To begin with, he takes issue with the use of the term “militant atheist” and poses the question what exactly is a non-militant atheist compared to a militant atheist. He also questions the very term atheist, noting that we don’t have terms such as afairyist to describe those who don’t believe in fairies, suggesting that who don’t believe in any gods, fairies, angels etc as naturalists and those who do as supernaturalists.
Grayling then turns his attention to some of the public conflicts between the religious and areligious that have led some to suggest that there’s been a religious resurgence. Instead, he argues that what we are seeing is instead religion in its death throes comparable to the post reformation wars in which the Catholic church, via subservient countries, refused to give up its control of the whole of Europe without a fight.
Grayling then turns his attention to some of the public conflicts between the religious and areligious that have led some to suggest that there’s been a religious resurgence. Instead, he argues that what we are seeing is instead religion in its death throes comparable to the post reformation wars in which the Catholic church, via subservient countries, refused to give up its control of the whole of Europe without a fight.
April 15, 2025
Excelente y al grano.
Lo dice desde el principio. NO es contra una religión es contra una forma de pensamiento que tienen todas en común (además de la religión la tienen todas las supercherías como la astrología... etc) que es creer en lo sobrenatural. Yo lo llamo pensamiento mágico
No es un libro que un taliban de la religión o simplemente creyente pueda aceptar, porque su mente mágica chocara tras cada frase de este conciso libro. Lo que habría que analizar como sociedad es el por qué persiste este pensamiento mágico. En el mismo libro y en la experiencia de todas las personas sabemos que es en parte el sistema educativo y familiar que hace que este tipo de cosas, persistan. ¿Alguien os ha preguntado que de qué signo (del zodiaco claro está) sois ? Y se lo toman en serio que es peor.
Lo dice desde el principio. NO es contra una religión es contra una forma de pensamiento que tienen todas en común (además de la religión la tienen todas las supercherías como la astrología... etc) que es creer en lo sobrenatural. Yo lo llamo pensamiento mágico
No es un libro que un taliban de la religión o simplemente creyente pueda aceptar, porque su mente mágica chocara tras cada frase de este conciso libro. Lo que habría que analizar como sociedad es el por qué persiste este pensamiento mágico. En el mismo libro y en la experiencia de todas las personas sabemos que es en parte el sistema educativo y familiar que hace que este tipo de cosas, persistan. ¿Alguien os ha preguntado que de qué signo (del zodiaco claro está) sois ? Y se lo toman en serio que es peor.
Read
August 20, 2023Very informative and indeed polemic. Reading these essays was akin to listening to the likes of Christopher Hitchens unleashing reason and humour on to the faithul who clam the existence of a god.
Also, it is humbling to admit, but if you aren´t born with the english language, you might learn a new word or two, which is refreshing but not suffocating.
A thing of beauty this little book of essays, I loved how Grayling ended it - with a posive outlook on the last heavings of a dying: organized religion. This is not "Ressurection" in full bloom, he says, this is ressucitation and it won´t work.
Also, it is humbling to admit, but if you aren´t born with the english language, you might learn a new word or two, which is refreshing but not suffocating.
A thing of beauty this little book of essays, I loved how Grayling ended it - with a posive outlook on the last heavings of a dying: organized religion. This is not "Ressurection" in full bloom, he says, this is ressucitation and it won´t work.
July 30, 2019
My main issue with this small collection of essays was trying to figure out who exactly was meant to be its audience. Saying that it preaches to the choir seems an understatement. Perhaps it was meant to give atheists more eloquent ways to make their arguments but even in this it didn’t seem particularly original. Perhaps it is because I have heard these arguments before and already agree with them that I didn’t find it particularly interesting. Maybe it’ll give someone on the fence the necessary push but its brevity makes me doubt this.
August 8, 2017
Six short essays on what wrong religion does and had done to the mankind. One of the essays suggests an alternative to the absence of religion, which is a Humanist way of life rooted in natural and real world. Author also expresses his displeasure at the term atheist instead asks to be called a naturalist.
Short but powerful book. A must read.
Short but powerful book. A must read.
January 8, 2024
The Voice of Reason
A simple explanation of what a Humanist is so we can all explain to others clearly what we believe in and why it is important to speak out.
Thankyou Dr Grayling.
A simple explanation of what a Humanist is so we can all explain to others clearly what we believe in and why it is important to speak out.
Thankyou Dr Grayling.
September 16, 2017
succinct
January 5, 2018
Un libro corto pero potente. Si eres religioso, ponte un condón intelectual porque estas a punto ser violado.
April 18, 2018
A myopic and reductionist analysis on religion. Highly disappointing.
May 30, 2023
Un libro corto pero con detalles sustanciosos, creo más que profundizar genera más dudas y reflexiones. Me gusta este estilo rápido de reflexiones.
June 8, 2024
If you like A C Grayling you are going to love this concisely worded collection of essays. Highly recommended.
September 29, 2015
Este libro de A. C. Grayling (reputado profesor de filosofía, colaborador en diversas publicaciones y autor de varios libros sobre la religiosidad) lleva como subtítulo “Seis discusiones sobre la religión y un ensayo sobre la bondad”, que giran en torno de temas como el “derecho inherente” a que las religiones sean respetadas, si el ateísmo, por sí mismo, debería ser considerado una religión, o si vivimos un resurgimiento global de ésta, y que, finalmente, el pensamiento reflexivo es lo que evitará que regresemos a una época oscurantista (ya Malraux había afirmado que el siglo XXI sería religioso o no sería).
Creo, sin temor a equivocarme, que lo más rescatable del libro es la reflexión final sobre la alternativa a las posturas retrógradas, fundamentalistas e irreflexivas de las religiones –porque, de que las hay, las hay–: el humanismo. Así, afirma de éste que “su deseo de aprender del pasado, su exhortación al coraje en el presente, y su compromiso con la esperanza en el futuro, tienen por objeto las cosas reales, las personas reales, las necesidades y las posibilidades humanas reales, y el destino del frágil mundo que compartimos. Su objeto es la vida humana; no requiere creer en una vida después de la muerte. Su objeto es este mundo; no requiere creer en otro mundo. Su capacidad de atribuir sentido al mundo o de fomentar la vida ética no requiere órdenes de divinidades, ni promesas de recompensas o amenazas de castigos, ni mitos ni rituales. Sólo requiere abrir bien los ojos, ser compasivo y amable, y usar la razón”.
Sin comulgar del todo con las reflexiones –quizá valdría más llamarlas acusaciones– de Grayling, creo que abren un debate inteligente sobre una “ética no religiosa” (cosa que no sólo comparto, sino afirmo).
Creo, sin temor a equivocarme, que lo más rescatable del libro es la reflexión final sobre la alternativa a las posturas retrógradas, fundamentalistas e irreflexivas de las religiones –porque, de que las hay, las hay–: el humanismo. Así, afirma de éste que “su deseo de aprender del pasado, su exhortación al coraje en el presente, y su compromiso con la esperanza en el futuro, tienen por objeto las cosas reales, las personas reales, las necesidades y las posibilidades humanas reales, y el destino del frágil mundo que compartimos. Su objeto es la vida humana; no requiere creer en una vida después de la muerte. Su objeto es este mundo; no requiere creer en otro mundo. Su capacidad de atribuir sentido al mundo o de fomentar la vida ética no requiere órdenes de divinidades, ni promesas de recompensas o amenazas de castigos, ni mitos ni rituales. Sólo requiere abrir bien los ojos, ser compasivo y amable, y usar la razón”.
Sin comulgar del todo con las reflexiones –quizá valdría más llamarlas acusaciones– de Grayling, creo que abren un debate inteligente sobre una “ética no religiosa” (cosa que no sólo comparto, sino afirmo).
August 6, 2014
Otro librito breve leído para clase de Epistemología. Aquí se esgrimen interesantes argumentos contra la práctica real de la religión. Ojo, no es un libro que desarme con fineza lógica y filosófica la existencia de divinidades ni nada por el estilo, sino una severa crítica a la intolerancia que puede surgir de las creencias religiosas, o a la búsqueda de privilegios por el mismo motivo. También aclara algunas cuestiones sobre posturas no religiosas, que tienden a confundirse, y termina proponiendo una alternativa moral secular: la preocupación del ser humano por sí mismo.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews